10.3886/ICPSR03270.v1United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of JusticeArrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research2001ADAM/DUF Programalcohol abusearrestscrime patternsdemographic characteristicsdrug dependencedrug offendersdrug related crimesdrug testingdrug treatmentdrug usedrugssubstance abusetrends2001-12-212006-03-302000-01-01--2000-12-31
administrative records data;
clinical data;
medical records;
survey data
32701Beginning in 1996, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
initiated a major redesign of its multisite drug-monitoring program,
the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24
CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]). The program was
retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) (see ARRESTEE DRUG
ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 1998 [ICPSR
2628] and 1999 [ICPSR 2994]). ADAM extended DUF in the number of sites
and improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The
redesign was fully implemented in all sites beginning in the first
quarter of 2000. The ADAM program implemented a new and expanded adult
instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the
male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) data. The juvenile data for 2000
(Part 3) used the juvenile instrument from previous years. The ADAM
program also moved to probability-based sampling for the adult male
population during 2000. Therefore, the 2000 adult male sample includes
weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the
data. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000
required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the
county. The core instrument for the adult cases was supplemented by a
facesheet, which was used to collect demographic and charge
information from official records. Core instruments were used to
collect self-report information from the respondent. Both the adult
and juvenile instruments were administered to persons arrested and
booked on local or state charges relevant to the jurisdiction (i.e.,
not federal or out-of-county charges) within the past 48 hours. At the
completion of the interview the arrestee was asked to voluntarily
provide a urine specimen. An external lab used the Enzyme Multiplied
Immunoassay Testing (EMIT) protocols to test for the presence of ten
drugs or metabolites of the drug in the urine sample. All amphetamine
positives were confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) to determine whether methamphetamine was used. For the adult
data, variables from the facesheet include arrest precinct, ZIP code
of arrest location, ZIP code of respondent's address, respondent's
gender and race, three most serious arrest charges, sample source
(stock, flow, other), interview status (including reason the
individual selected in the sample was not interviewed), language of
instrument used, and the number of hours since arrest. Demographic
information from the core instrument includes respondent's age,
ethnicity, residency, education, employment, health insurance
coverage, marital status, housing, and telephone access. Variables
from the calendar provide information on inpatient and outpatient
substance abuse treatment, inpatient mental health treatment, arrests
and incarcerations, heavy alcohol use, use of marijuana, crack/rock
cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drug (ever
and previous 12 months), age of first use of the above six drugs and
heavy alcohol use, drug dependency in the previous 12 months,
characteristics of drug transactions in past 30 days, use of
marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and
methamphetamine in past 30 days, 7 days, and 48 hours, heavy alcohol
use in past 30 days, and secondary drug use of 15 other drugs in the
past 48 hours. Urine test results are provided for 11 drugs --
marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), benzodiazepines
(Valium), propoxyphene (Darvon), methadone, methaqualone,
barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The adult data files
include several derived variables. The male data also include four
sampling weights, and stratum identifications and percents. For the
juvenile data, demographic variables include age, race, sex,
educational attainment, employment status, and living
circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's
self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder
cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes,
methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For
each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the
drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30
days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past
month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they
were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they
were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received
treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they
could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include
whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they
were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for
which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room
for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months,
and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with
the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally,
variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law
code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested)
are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each
site.Beginning in 1996, the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) initiated a major redesign of its multisite
drug-monitoring program, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (DRUG
USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR
9477]). The program was retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)
(see ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED
STATES, 1998 [ICPSR 2628] and 1999 [ICPSR 2994]). ADAM extended DUF in
the number of sites and improved the quality and generalizability of
the data. The redesign was fully implemented beginning in the first
quarter of 2000. The original goal remained the same -- to determine
the extent of drug use in the arrestee population in a defined area at
specified points each year. However, the redesigned sampling protocol
and instrument extended ADAM's goals in the following ways: (1) to
provide a suitable probability-based sample of jails and arrestees to
support prevalence estimates of drug use and related behaviors in each
county included in the ADAM program, (2) to provide accurate estimates
with confidence intervals that permit tests of the significance of
drug use trends, (3) to create a standardized dataset on arrestees in
multiple jurisdictions to allow cross-site comparisons, (4) to expand
the scope of DUF data to include other areas of concern (treatment
history, dependency/abuse assessment, drug markets), (5) to provide a
platform for distinguishing between arrest and drug use practices and
for drawing inferences about the total population of hardcore or heavy
drug users, including those not in the current ADAM sample, (6) to
provide data for policy responses to substance abuse issues both
locally and nationally, (7) to investigate drug markets or purchases,
including data on characteristics of the market, conditions of
purchase or exchange, and prices paid, (8) to assess risk of alcohol
and/or drug dependency, drug and mental health treatment experiences,
and (9) to use common definitions and, where possible, identical
questions and response categories to allow meaningful links between
ADAM and other national data systems.The ADAM program implemented a new and expanded
adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both
the male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) data. The juvenile data for 2000
(Part 3) used the juvenile instrument from previous years. The ADAM
program also moved to a probability-based sampling for the adult male
population during 2000. Therefore, the 2000 adult male sample includes
weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the
data. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000
required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the
county. ADAM sites in 2000 included Albuquerque (Bernalillo County),
Anchorage (Anchorage Borough), Atlanta (Fulton and DeKalb Counties),
Birmingham (Jefferson County), Capital Area (Albany County, New York),
Charlotte-Metro (Mecklenburg County), Chicago (Cook County), Cleveland
(Cuyahoga County), Dallas (Dallas County), Denver (Denver County), Des
Moines (Polk County), Detroit (Wayne County), Ft. Lauderdale (Broward
County), Honolulu (Oahu County), Houston (Harris County), Indianapolis
(Marion County), Laredo (Webb County), Las Vegas (Clark County), Los
Angeles (Los Angeles County), Miami (Miami-Dade County), Minneapolis
(Hennepin County), New Orleans (Orleans Parish), New York (Manhattan
Borough), Oklahoma City (Oklahoma County), Omaha (Douglas County),
Philadelphia (Philadelphia County), Phoenix (Maricopa County),
Portland (Multnomah County), Sacramento (Sacramento County), Salt Lake
City (Salt Lake County), San Antonio (Bexar County), San Diego (San
Diego County), San Jose (Santa Clara County), Seattle (King County),
Spokane (Spokane County), and Tuscon (Pima County). The core
instrument for the adult cases was supplemented by a facesheet, which
was used to collect demographic and charge information from official
records. Core instruments were used to collect self-report information
from the respondent. Both the adult and juvenile instruments were
administered to persons arrested and booked on local or state charges
relevant to the jurisdiction (i.e., not federal or out-of-county
charges) within the past 48 hours. Trained interviewers used a paper
and pencil instrument in a face-to-face setting in a secure and
reasonably private area of the booking facility. The adult interview
took an average of 20 minutes. The juvenile interview took an average
of 5 minutes. Responses were recorded by the interviewer at the time
of the interview. At the completion of the interview, the arrestee was
asked to voluntarily provide a urine specimen. The adult male and
female data reflect all the arrestees selected for an interview from
the booking logs, including those for whom only facesheet information
was collected. The final sample for each adult data file, however, is
the subset of arrestees that accepted and completed an interview. An
external lab used the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing (EMIT)
protocols to test for the presence of ten drugs or metabolites of the
drug in the urine sample. All amphetamine positives were confirmed by
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to determine whether
methamphetamine was used. Local booking facilities provide a census of
all adult males arrested in each facility collecting data for the time
period of data collection in the target county. The census data are
not in the public file but were used to develop sampling weights for
the male data.For the adult data, variables from the facesheet
include arrest precinct, ZIP code of arrest location, ZIP code of
respondent's address, respondent's gender and race, three most serious
arrest charges, sample source (stock, flow, other), interview status
(including reason the individual selected was not interviewed),
language of instrument used, and the number of hours since
arrest. Demographic information from the core instrument includes
respondent's age, ethnicity, residency, education, employment, health
insurance coverage, marital status, housing, and telephone
access. Variables from the calendar provide information on inpatient
and outpatient substance abuse treatment, inpatient mental health
treatment, arrests and incarcerations, heavy alcohol use, use of
marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin,
methamphetamine, and other drug (ever and previous 12 months), age of
first use of the above six drugs and heavy alcohol use, drug
dependency in the previous 12 months, characteristics of drug
transactions in past 30 days, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine,
powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in past 30 days, 7 days,
and 48 hours, heavy alcohol use in past 30 days, and secondary drug
use of 15 other drugs in the past 48 hours. Urine test results are
provided for 11 drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine
(PCP), benzodiazepines (Valium), propoxyphene (Darvon), methadone,
methaqualone, barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The
adult data files include several derived variables. The male data also
include four sampling weights, and stratum identifications and
percents. For the juvenile data, demographic variables include age,
race, sex, educational attainment, employment status, and living
circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's
self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder
cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes,
methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For
each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the
drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30
days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past
month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they
were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they
were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received
treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they
could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include
whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they
were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for
which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room
for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months,
and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with
the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally,
variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law
code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested)
are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each
site.